- now, all of the above are fake / scam accounts, for fairly
obvious reasons. Either photos in them link to porn sites via GIS,
or in one case it's someone pretending to be supermodel Chanel
Iman, or in another it's obvious the photos were stolen from
another profile (they have the "double watermark") - anyway, all
were flagged as fake profiles. Yet they're all still standing, for
some reason. No one in their right mind actually thinks Chanel Iman
is trolling for dates on OKC, or that the last one - which gets
110,000(!) GIS hits is in any way legit.

Yet... there are always those flagmods who, I guess, don't read the
line "Is obviously a spammer (based on photos or essays)" - they
jump in with "flag the pic" as if simply removing the pic of Chanel
Iman, or the pic stolen from a porn site, will solve the problem.
It's still a fake profile, someone pretending to be someone they're
not, and they're simply going to upload new pics, only to get
flagged again, ad infinitum, until the faker gets bored and gives
up (if ever) or finally finds a set of stolen pics that don't
register in GIS for some reason.

Now, the question is - if one was to flag the profile a second
time, after it had passed through he flagmod queue and somehow it
still stood, would that second flag register, and the profile
re-enter the queue? It seems you can only flag something once. I
can understand the need for this, as people could revenge flag
someone into oblivion that they just personally didn't like. But it
also seems like maybe there could be a solution to permanently
delete these obvious fakes/scams. Maybe if, at the end of the
queue, they're all passed on to someone who actually works for OKC
who can look at such obvious things and right past all the "flag
the pic!" clutter.

Some of us are just trying help out the community by cleaning up
the site a bit when we've got some free time, but it's a bit like
fighting a brick wall now and then. If you don't hit the queue
right at the moment a group of sensible flagmods happen to be
modding, things have a way of just passing through and lingering on
the site forever. It makes it such that one doesn't really want to
bother helping out anymore - we do it out of a sense of community,
but if it's an exercise in futility, there doesn't seem to be any
point.

As you started the thread here, I'll answer here. I'm a bit n00b
to flagmod, but from what I understand, when you have too many
picture deletes, OKC will delete your account. So that kind of
helps to make sure things don't spiral into oblivion, even if
profile is kept & pic is taken. Not perfect, but then again —
we only see a very onesided ... side of the whole system and I
trust there's solid machines of metal somewhere, grinding hard
statistics on flags, votes and the like, ever cautios of finding
the balance between weeding out spam & getting too many false
positives.

tyrebiter - do
not name the one who cannot be named! But the point is valid — with
freedom come things with pointy teeth and ungodly appetites, that
is the basic logic of all computer security. OKC has struck a good
balance of noise/signal ratio and flagmods with their plethora of
opinions are one piece of the infrastructure upholding this
balance.

Scam profiles are killed-off here by the thousands, sometimes
thousands in a day.

Whether the amount that slip through the control measures are
too much for the taste of Eeyore up there or anyone else, has
nothing to do with "they don't care". Sites like this are
continuously bombarded with miscreants
trying to exploit the site for scamming and spamming.

The reason many of us are HERE rather than the hundreds of
dating website competitors (or the dozens of other dating websites
Interactive Corporation owns other than OkCupid), is because they
have not clamped-down like the Gestapo requiring every single
f*cking change to your profile to be vetted by some stupid nanny,
and every single thing you write or post anywhere on the site to be
moderated and sanitized by the thought-police before seeing the
light of day, and so on and so forth. The mere fact you all can sit
here on one of OkCupid's open/public forums and kvetch about all
the stuff you don't like about the site is
a perfect example of that freedom.
Because many of the competitors ban that sort of thing, might even
throw you off their site for it.

For those who prefer the nannying sort of thing, there are
plenty of alternatives, including various other websites owned by
the same umbrella corporation that now owns OkCupid. (but which
does not run day-to-day operations here)

Well, I'm not a computer programmer, and have no inspiration to
become one. So I don't know anything about this. I
suppose there's some type of software you can run a picture through
and "analyze it"... and if the pic "fails", then it's considered a
GIS and should be deleted? A simplified explanation in the
guidelines would be rather useful.

But alright, besides this GIS deal... how do you *PROVE* that a pic
is not really the user? Do we need to click on their profiles
and read through, and try to determine if the person is real or
not? That's just a tad beyond what is indicated in the
guidelines - that we're just voting on the pic itself.

I would like someone to get back to me on what to do when everyone
has voted "gis", and I cant find anything wrong with the pic.